(02-23-2022 11:39 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 05:42 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 04:50 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I just realized that Tom doesn't really like Trump all that much.

He's not a Democrat though.

Clearly, all Republican, Libertarian, and Independent Voters just ADORE trump.

I guess I missed where anybody said that. You lose a lot of credibility w/ nonsense posts like this. ODU and Eldonabe didn't say anything that was false in the 2 posts you responded to.

Dude....try reading? The guy implied that since I don't like trump that I must be a Democrat.

Why do leftists have a hard time believing that may Trump voters simply dislike him far, far less than they dislike the democrat alternatives?

(02-23-2022 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why do leftists have a hard time believing that may Trump voters simply dislike him far, far less than they dislike the democrat alternatives?

Great point, I think we ALL on both sides need to remember that many people vote the way they do to vote against one party, as much or more as they are voting for the one they pull the lever for. The extremists on both sides of the aisle aren't serving the country well and I for one would love to see a true centrist third party arise.

(02-23-2022 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Why do leftists have a hard time believing that may Trump voters simply dislike him far, far less than they dislike the democrat alternatives?

Because they ALL love their politicians and will defend them till the bitter end.

(02-23-2022 10:39 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Not to take anything away from your post, Eldonabe, because you're spot on.

But just to clarify, personally I am a Trump fan. I voted for Cruz in the TN GOP Primary, but Trump won me over as he followed through on his promises -- the bulk of which I agreed with.

I kept hearing the "he's not presidential" criticism but I realized that's why I liked him. He wasn't a pile of Dem or Rep who's driven by greed & power who use their position to walk all over the Constitution.

They are the problem that the people asked Trump to solve.

They're still the problem and he still needs to solve it. Trump 2024!

I guess that was a little over the top. I am not a fan of Trump the person, I do think he did a decent job as president and I do believe he tried to act in the best interest of the country as a whole. If he would put aside the hyperbole and braggadocio when he speaks I would probably like him more so.

The fact that he was able to do half of what he did with all the pushback and turmoil is pretty impressive.

(02-23-2022 12:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:39 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 05:42 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 04:50 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I just realized that Tom doesn't really like Trump all that much.

He's not a Democrat though.

Clearly, all Republican, Libertarian, and Independent Voters just ADORE trump.

I guess I missed where anybody said that. You lose a lot of credibility w/ nonsense posts like this. ODU and Eldonabe didn't say anything that was false in the 2 posts you responded to.

Dude....try reading? The guy implied that since I don't like trump that I must be a Democrat.

Well you are really good at reciting Dem talking points.....

(02-23-2022 12:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:39 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 06:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 05:42 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 04:50 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  I just realized that Tom doesn't really like Trump all that much.

He's not a Democrat though.

Clearly, all Republican, Libertarian, and Independent Voters just ADORE trump.

I guess I missed where anybody said that. You lose a lot of credibility w/ nonsense posts like this. ODU and Eldonabe didn't say anything that was false in the 2 posts you responded to.

Dude....try reading? The guy implied that since I don't like trump that I must be a Democrat.

Youre way worse than a democrat in the traditional sense....way worse

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Answers: Trump Transition data was passed to the CIA

Quote:Last week, we documented Special Counsel John Durham’s motion discussing the potential conflicts of interest of Michael Sussmann’s attorneys. That filing was important for a number of reasons. Significantly, Durham stated that Sussmann and his client, Rodney Joffe (a federal contractor with access to “sensitive” data) “exploited” internet traffic data (domain name system, or DNS) pertaining to “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”



We also discussed the significance of this development, asking why Joffe and Sussmann continued to push false allegations of Trump’s ties to Russia after the election. One could theorize that they made the Trump/Russia connection in the summer and fall of 2016 to hurt Trump politically. After all, the bogus story of a secret Alfa Bank/Trump Organization back-channel made it to Slate via Franklin Foer on October 31, 2016 – just before the November 8, 2016 presidential election, and not long after Sussmann went to the FBI to relay these same allegations.

But why continue to push a Trump/Russia hoax in February 2017?

It’s within the realm of possibilities that they wanted to continue to damage Trump politically, as this was the general goal of the political and bureaucratic establishment during the Trump years – especially in the early period, when Trump’s political power and his ability to implement his agenda would be at its height. It’s why James Comey leaked classified memos through his lawyer, why there were leaks against Flynn in early January 2017, and why Kevin Clinesmith falsified a CIA e-mail so that the FISA warrants against Carter Page could continue.

Or, perhaps Sussmann and Joffe wanted to spur additional intelligence community investigations into Trump. It is accurate to say that they were desperate to prove Trump’s links to Russia. So desperate, in fact, that they were providing manipulated data to the federal government to further false Trump/Russia conspiracies.

And consider whether Sussmann took this information to the CIA on behalf of a type of “whistleblower,” allowing Joffe to remain nameless.

What did the CIA do with that information?

Did the CIA pass it to the FBI, allowing Joffe to theoretically keep his hands clean and his identity unknown?

All good questions. We don’t have the answers – yet.

But there is an answer we do have. After Sussmann’s attorney responded to the Durham filing, stating that Sussmann provided the CIA with Executive Office of the President data from “when Barack Obama was president,” we theorized that this data was from the transition period because that’s when there would be access to Trump’s team:

If Sussmann’s attorney is telling the truth (never a given), then we suspect the Executive Office of the President data included that from the 74 day the Trump transition period (between the November 8, 2016 election and the January 20, 2017 inauguration) – which would still be spying on the incoming Trump Administration.

Then our friend Margot Cleveland reviewed a Durham filing in the Sussmann case from October 21, 2021 and put it all together:

As the October 2021 filing states:



That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

Predictably, after Durham filed his motion the establishment/left media downplayed its significance in two ways.

First, Charlie Savage of the New York Times noted that the data from the Executive Office of the President “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” That’s a curious way of saying the transition period – especially when the data involved those associated with Trump. (The content of the data being more important than the timing of the data.)

Second, Philip Bump over at the Washington Post condemned the reaction to the Durham allegations and claimed “it’s not clear that it [the Trump Tower, Trump Apartment, Trump Transition/EOP data] was or that it was used for any reason other than normal tracking of potential threats.” To say that, Bump must ignore the political motivations of Sussmann and Joffe, and disregard the findings that these allegations they brought – whether to the FBI or the CIA – were found to be baseless.

What these writers and publications are missing, of course, is the outright scandal of the CIA collecting information on a sitting president.

Before I close, let me say a few more words about Philip Bump, a national correspondent for The Washington Post. This is the same guy who, in 2019, downplayed the theory that “biased FBI agents and other officials used faulty information to target Page to spy on the campaign.” In reality, the FBI agents were biased, the information was faulty, and the campaign was spied on.

Bump’s problems go beyond indefensible conclusions about matters of public record. His writing is just as bad, evidencing deficiency of thought. He has a rich history of blunders. These are weekly occurrences for him, though I’ll focus on just one article.

When discussing questions regarding the hacking of the DNC server, for example, Bump stated “This server thing shows one direction of sprawl, and a narrow one.” But sprawl is defined as “to spread or develop irregularly or without restraint.” We call it “suburban sprawl” because suburban developments spread in every direction (the sprawl) from an urban center. Sprawl across your bed and you leave little room for your partner. Narrow sprawl doesn’t make sense.

Or consider this Bump-ism when discussing some of the Carter Page allegations:

“Fox News personalities such as Hannity and his cadre of guests were simply walking backward, trying to find a hole in the wall. This is the hole they found, and they ran with it.”

Think about that last sentence for a moment. How can you run with a hole in the wall?

You can’t.

And that, my friends, is The Washington Post.

Link

(02-23-2022 03:53 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Answers: Trump Transition data was passed to the CIA

Quote:Last week, we documented Special Counsel John Durham’s motion discussing the potential conflicts of interest of Michael Sussmann’s attorneys. That filing was important for a number of reasons. Significantly, Durham stated that Sussmann and his client, Rodney Joffe (a federal contractor with access to “sensitive” data) “exploited” internet traffic data (domain name system, or DNS) pertaining to “the Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”).”



We also discussed the significance of this development, asking why Joffe and Sussmann continued to push false allegations of Trump’s ties to Russia after the election. One could theorize that they made the Trump/Russia connection in the summer and fall of 2016 to hurt Trump politically. After all, the bogus story of a secret Alfa Bank/Trump Organization back-channel made it to Slate via Franklin Foer on October 31, 2016 – just before the November 8, 2016 presidential election, and not long after Sussmann went to the FBI to relay these same allegations.

But why continue to push a Trump/Russia hoax in February 2017?

It’s within the realm of possibilities that they wanted to continue to damage Trump politically, as this was the general goal of the political and bureaucratic establishment during the Trump years – especially in the early period, when Trump’s political power and his ability to implement his agenda would be at its height. It’s why James Comey leaked classified memos through his lawyer, why there were leaks against Flynn in early January 2017, and why Kevin Clinesmith falsified a CIA e-mail so that the FISA warrants against Carter Page could continue.

Or, perhaps Sussmann and Joffe wanted to spur additional intelligence community investigations into Trump. It is accurate to say that they were desperate to prove Trump’s links to Russia. So desperate, in fact, that they were providing manipulated data to the federal government to further false Trump/Russia conspiracies.

And consider whether Sussmann took this information to the CIA on behalf of a type of “whistleblower,” allowing Joffe to remain nameless.

What did the CIA do with that information?

Did the CIA pass it to the FBI, allowing Joffe to theoretically keep his hands clean and his identity unknown?

All good questions. We don’t have the answers – yet.

But there is an answer we do have. After Sussmann’s attorney responded to the Durham filing, stating that Sussmann provided the CIA with Executive Office of the President data from “when Barack Obama was president,” we theorized that this data was from the transition period because that’s when there would be access to Trump’s team:

If Sussmann’s attorney is telling the truth (never a given), then we suspect the Executive Office of the President data included that from the 74 day the Trump transition period (between the November 8, 2016 election and the January 20, 2017 inauguration) – which would still be spying on the incoming Trump Administration.

Then our friend Margot Cleveland reviewed a Durham filing in the Sussmann case from October 21, 2021 and put it all together:

As the October 2021 filing states:



That would confirm the data Sussmann and Joffe passed to the CIA was from the Trump transition period. While Washington and the press focus on January 6, the more dangerous and anti-democratic acts occurred in the shadows in 2016 and 2017. They didn’t seize the Capitol because they didn’t have to. The FBI and the CIA were willing to do their bidding, operating in secret to spy on and undermine the President.

Predictably, after Durham filed his motion the establishment/left media downplayed its significance in two ways.

First, Charlie Savage of the New York Times noted that the data from the Executive Office of the President “came from Barack Obama’s presidency.” That’s a curious way of saying the transition period – especially when the data involved those associated with Trump. (The content of the data being more important than the timing of the data.)

Second, Philip Bump over at the Washington Post condemned the reaction to the Durham allegations and claimed “it’s not clear that it [the Trump Tower, Trump Apartment, Trump Transition/EOP data] was or that it was used for any reason other than normal tracking of potential threats.” To say that, Bump must ignore the political motivations of Sussmann and Joffe, and disregard the findings that these allegations they brought – whether to the FBI or the CIA – were found to be baseless.

What these writers and publications are missing, of course, is the outright scandal of the CIA collecting information on a sitting president.

Before I close, let me say a few more words about Philip Bump, a national correspondent for The Washington Post. This is the same guy who, in 2019, downplayed the theory that “biased FBI agents and other officials used faulty information to target Page to spy on the campaign.” In reality, the FBI agents were biased, the information was faulty, and the campaign was spied on.

Bump’s problems go beyond indefensible conclusions about matters of public record. His writing is just as bad, evidencing deficiency of thought. He has a rich history of blunders. These are weekly occurrences for him, though I’ll focus on just one article.

When discussing questions regarding the hacking of the DNC server, for example, Bump stated “This server thing shows one direction of sprawl, and a narrow one.” But sprawl is defined as “to spread or develop irregularly or without restraint.” We call it “suburban sprawl” because suburban developments spread in every direction (the sprawl) from an urban center. Sprawl across your bed and you leave little room for your partner. Narrow sprawl doesn’t make sense.

Or consider this Bump-ism when discussing some of the Carter Page allegations:

“Fox News personalities such as Hannity and his cadre of guests were simply walking backward, trying to find a hole in the wall. This is the hole they found, and they ran with it.”

Think about that last sentence for a moment. How can you run with a hole in the wall?

You can’t.

And that, my friends, is The Washington Post.

Link

Oooooof



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Durham argues Sussmann lying to FBI mattered as Clinton lawyer pushed collusion claims

Quote:John Durham is arguing that a Democratic cybersecurity lawyer’s alleged lies to the FBI while pushing refuted collusion claims in 2016 really did matter as the defendant tries to throw out the case by claiming he did not lie and that even if he did, the lie was “immaterial.”

Michael Sussmann was indicted last year on charges of concealing his clients — Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and “Tech Executive-1,” known to be former Neustar executive Rodney Joffe — from FBI general counsel James Baker when he pushed since-debunked claims of a secret backchannel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Sussmann denies wrongdoing, pleaded not guilty, and called upon a federal judge to dismiss the case against him last month, even relying in part on legal analysis by fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.

The special counsel fired back Friday.

“The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign,” Durham wrote. “The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways.”

Durham said if Sussmann had told the truth, it could have affected how the FBI chose to proceed, with options including a full investigation, a preliminary investigation, an assessment, delaying until after the election, or declining to investigate altogether, noting that “the source and origins of the information” matter to the FBI.

“Here, had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a ‘good citizen,’ the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process," Durham wrote. "They might have asked, for example, whether the defendant’s clients harbored any political biases or business motives that might cast doubt on the reliability of the information."

"TECH EXEC-`1" PLEADED THE FIFTH TO DURHAM GRAND JURY

Durham revealed last month that he has evidence that Sussmann’s other client, Joffe, “exploited” domain name system internet traffic at Trump Tower, Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President. The special counsel said in October that Joffe “exploited his own company’s access to the sensitive internet data of a high-ranking executive branch office of the U.S. government, both before and after the Presidential election."

Sussmann’s lawyers said last month that he met with the FBI in September 2016 “to pass along information that raised national security concerns” and characterized this as simply “to provide a tip.” The lawyers contended that Sussmann was “charged with making a false statement about an entirely ancillary matter — about who his client may have been when he met with the FBI — which is a fact that even the Special Counsel’s own indictment fails to allege had any effect on the FBI’s decision to open an investigation.”

Durham said “the defendant made his false statement directly to the FBI General Counsel on a matter that was anything but ancillary: namely, the existence … of attorney-client relationships that would have shed critical light on the origins of the allegations at issue.” The special counsel stressed that Sussmann’s alleged lie “was capable of influencing both the FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation.”

“Mr. Sussmann did not make any false statement to the FBI,” Sussmann’s defense team claimed. “But in any event, the false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law. Furthermore, allowing this case to go forward would risk criminalizing ordinary conduct, raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government.”

Durham said that argument was nonsense.

“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant — a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer — chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season. He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations,” the special counsel wrote. “Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect.”

Durham noted Friday that Joffe “had a history of providing assistance to the FBI on cyber security matters, but decided in this instance to provide politically-charged allegations anonymously through the defendant and a law firm that was then-counsel to the Clinton Campaign."

Joffe revealed in a deposition last month that he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked to testify in front of Durham’s grand jury.

Durham has also said Sussmann told a U.S. government agency, widely believed to be the CIA, about the phony Russian bank connection in a February 2017 meeting, where Sussmann again allegedly misled about who his client was. The special counsel said Sussmann claimed that data he had access to “demonstrated that Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations.” Durham emphasized that he found "no support for these allegations.”

The special counsel said Joffe “exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data" and tasked researchers to mine internet data to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia. Durham said Joffe indicated he was doing this to please certain “VIPs” on the Clinton campaign.

The Clinton campaign touted the Alfa Bank claims in the closing days of the 2016 election, but special counsel Robert Mueller, the FBI, and a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation did not uncover evidence of its veracity.